Posted on 06/21/2005 2:43:48 PM PDT by anonymoussierra
Bush underlines support for strong Europe
US president George W. Bush has underlined his support for a strong Europe following the collapsed EU summit last week that left the future of the constitution uncertain and the bloc's budget undecided.
Speaking at an EU-US summit in Washington, Mr Bush said the US supports a strong Europe.
"My message to these leaders and these friends was that we want a Europe strong so we can work together to achieve important objectives and important goals", said the president.
He also said he wants to see a "strong European Union" that can help Washington spread democracy in the world noting that the two sides share "common values and shared aspirations".
[end]
Reassuring Washington The EU also did its bit to reassure the US, which has been concerned that following the crisis Brussels will become introspective only concerning itself with its internal decision-making and institutions.
"It's no surprise that in this process some problems may occur, but the European Union is there," said European commission president Jose Manuel Barroso.
"We are on business. We are deciding. We are taking decisions every day internally and externally, and we are committed to this very close relation with the United States", he added.
Luxembourg prime minister and current head of the EU Jean-Claude Juncker, said: "We made clear. . . that the European Union is not on its knees".
Following the summit last week, Mr Juncker had sarcastically remarked that he was off to Washington to convince Mr Bush of the "vigour and force" of Europe.
But the agenda and the issues agreed on Monday (20 June) appeared to show that business was continuing as usual with talks focussing on Iran, Iraq and China.
A joint EU-US statement said "We remain united in our determination to see the proliferation implications of Iran's advanced nuclear programme resolved".
[end]
On China, Mr Bush said that both sides agreed that Beijing should move to a more flexible exchange rate and allow more foreign imports to level the playing field in trade.
Washington and Brussels also said they would work on reducing regulatory barriers that hinder transatlantic business.
But the old differences continue as well, such as on climate change.
Mr Barroso said that Mr Bush "has a different approach to climate change regulations".
"What do think?"Thank you
"What do you think?"
What do I think? New World Order. Bush is a lot of things but he's no conservative and he's been for a lot of these big world ideas.
The US has been consistently pro-EU since the end of WWII.
It has been the foreign policy of every President from Truman to Bush II.
Reagan was the only President that didn't push for full-inclusion by the UK, but he was still pro-EU.
When it comes to President Bush, don't listen to his words. Watch his actions. While similar, they seldom are the same.
His father brought the term New World Order into the spotlight after it had lain dormant for decades. This President Bush is a globalist - 100% of the time. During the first term, it appeared that there was hope in him being a nationalist. HA. Maybe a Mexican nationalist.
Translation
"I seriously appreciate US President rather then previous US president. From what I’m seeing, my believe is; US President is more conservative then is being reported: needless his hands are being twisted by politicians. If you think about it; it takes very courageous man to stand up against UN and other political bodies and to decide to wage war."thank you
"The problem with the current EU is that it's become far more than a common market. They seek to destroy all national sovereignty."!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THANK YOU
The Fourth Reich was about a united Europe against the eastern Slavs and others. The SS had just about every ethnic group in it, to include the French and British.
Oh please...anyways, it was the "Third Reich."
The Third Reich was ALL ABOUT the GERMANIC/Aryan/Nordic race over ALL others.
It was not about a common market, a common currency, and it was certainly never about destroying nationalism.
Yup, that's why Italians, Albanians, Croatians, Belguins, French, British, Spainish, Ukrainian, Greek and many other nationalities were present in the SS. As a matter of fact, the Charlemagne (French) Brigade fought to the very end in Berlin.
"both of you make a good point"
Geezus...if you don't understand that the Third Reich placed the German nation above all others, then you aren't worth talking to, because that would make you ignorant.
All the propaganda in the Third Reich spoke about the "Fatherland" (Germany) and how no one belonged to themselves, but to the Fatherland (Germany). That everyone owed their life to the Fatherland (Germany). That the interests of the Fatherland (Germany) always superceded the interests of the individual.
They never once spoke about them owing themselves to the whole of Europe, to Albania, or France, or Serbia, or anyplace other than Germany.
If Hitler had his way, no one other than absolutely "pure" Germans could be in the SS, but alas, they were running out of troops and they had to lower their standards.
"And this brings your point #8 which makes sense. Think about it jb6, he makes vary valid point here, its just reverse side now as per EU"thank you
Every thread is either a Terri thread or a border thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.